Blazing Cat Fur posted this video from Sunny TV, and seeing how my last two posts have been about Sandra Fluke, I felt it necessary to post as well. Suffice to say, Sunny has a very nuanced take on the whole Sandra Fluke/Rush Limbaugh affair. Enjoy!
P.S. I think “B-Ho” is a great name for Barack Obama. It describes his style of politics perfectly.
Hot Air’s Tina Korbe has been following this story (here’s the link to her previous post). Rush Limbaugh doesn’t actually say it, despite what you’re hearing in the media, but it is certaintly implied that Sandra Fluke isn’t a lady. Here’s the video via therightscoop.
Today White House spokesman Jay Carney stated that Barack Obama expressed “disappointmnent” that Sandra Fluke has been subjected to “inappropriate personal attacks.” So it’s okay to bring her out to attack Catholics and religious freedom, but to challenge Fluke’s claims and to treat her like the sex-crazed individual she apparently is, according to CNS News’ Craig Bannister who ran the numbers on how much sex she and her friends must be having to be spending $3000 on contraceptives during their time in law school, that’s is somehow wrong?
This whole contraceptive argument has been about one thing, and it’s not “women’s rights.” It’s about forwarding a pro-abortion agenda against the wishes of moral Americans. Catholics and their supporters aren’t standing outside pharmacies to keep women from getting contraceptives, but this administration wants the American people to believe that that’s exactly what is going on, and somehow, by forcing religious organizations to go against their faith, we will perserve the status quo.
Rush Limbaugh is right. Sandra Fluke is, by any definition, a prostitute. She’s sold herself to politicians who have a warped political agenda to push. What’s pathetic is that she’s a cheap prostitute, selling herself for contraceptives.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin is weighing in on this. While I don’t agree that she isn’t a prostitute, I do agree that she is indeed the latest “tool of the Nanny State,” and “a poster girl for the rabid Planned Parenthood lobby and its eugenics-inspired foremothers.” Malkin also makes the point that this incident once again shows the doublestandards of the left who are constantly referring to conservative women by deragatory terms. I would say that at least when we use these words, it isn’t baseless slander.
I recommend my readership give Michelle Malkin’s post a read. There’s a link there to Jammie Wearing Fool’s post on this 30-year-old activist, not 23-year-old student. Apparently, Fluke chose to attend Georgetown Law specifically because it’s insurance policy didn’t cover contraceptives. With the Democrat’s attack on religion through this contraceptive mandate just starting, doesn’t this whole affair sound a little too convenient to anyone else?
UPDATE: Blazing Cat Fur just posted a link to quickmeme’s Sandy Fluke page. If you have don’t have delicate sensibilities and aren’t easily offended, I recommend you give it a look.
UPDATE: Here’s another link because the content at the one above was being removed for some reason.
Hat-tip to Blazing Cat Fur for the John Stossel column from Real Clear Politics. While I highly recommend my modest readership to give it a read, if you don’t have time to do so, perhaps due to the fact that you are celebrating Thanksgiving, here is a quote which sums it up.
…”So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue the next year also, if not some way prevented,” wrote Gov. William Bradford in his diary. The colonists, he said, “began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length after much debate of things, (I) (with the advice of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land.”
In other words, the people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic…
Even after being taught by the Native Americans how to survive in this new land, pilgrims were still starving because of the communal nature of the Plymouth colony. Why should young men work hard for someone else and not themselves? Why should those who were able-bodied not be able to benefit fairly from their own work? It was because of the privatization of the land and the incentives the pilgrims now had to work hard that there was not only a large harvest, but the first Thanksgiving that was celebrated in 1623.
Here’s the same story from Rush Limbaugh, via KingofdaWackos.
It doesn’t surprise me that the same history teachers who would teach their students to hate Thanksgiving would also omit the important economic lessons of the occasion. Long before Marxism and communes, the Plymouth Pilgrims found that such socialist policies did not work. Instead of accepting this lesson, they would prefer to erase it from history and pervert the meaning of this holiday to push their own political and social agenda.
Happy Thanksgiving to my American readership. Be thankful for the great food and you have and the company you share it with, but also the fact that more and more people are learning the lessons of the Plymouth Colony and are apply them to the hardships we face today.
UPDATE: Since when does the First Lady of the United States have to give Americans permission to have the tradition Thanksgiving pies? Both Hot Air’s Jimmie Bise, Jr and Doug Powers at Michelle Malkin’s blog are reporting on Michelle Obama’s dumbfounding comments. It seems that not even this American holiday is safe from the First Lady’s anti-obesity obsession.
While pies have been allowed, we don’t know whether or not a scoop of ice cream with with it is, or whether Americans will be permitted to have extra helpings. If the White House Thanksgiving menu is shows anything, it’s that Michelle Obama has no problem eating what she likes while dictating to everyone else what they are allow to have on their plates… Hypocrite…
One has to wonder whether or not NAMBLA will hold annual events there. Video of Rush Limbaugh discussing the story, via KingofdaWackos…
There seems to be some issue with loading this video, so if you are having trouble, here is the Youtube link.
The story does seem to be a month old, but seeing as how it was brought to Limbaugh’s attention, there must be some serious recent developments.
What to think? Well, it doesn’t seem well thought out. Michael Jackson was accused for sexual abuse of a child on a number of occasions, most notably the 1993 case and the more recent 2005 People v. Michael Jackson. To make him ranch, the alleged location of these and other abuses, doesn’t sound like the right course of action. I know he has a large devoted fan following, and even I have picked up his albums in the past (the “Michael Jackson Rule”, ignore the artist, enjoy the work), but I have a hard to believing Californians would be happy knowing their tax dollars are being spent preserving this residence. If you ask me, his people should set up a fund to preserve the Neverland Ranch, just as Star Wars fans have donated to save the famous “Lars Homestead” from the original film.
Just a waste of taxpayer’s money to preserve a site few outside of Jackson’s truly devoted followers and NAMBLA would appreciate… Mind-boggling…
Needless to say, I am infuriate by this dictatorial decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. Instead of respecting the wishes of the majority of California, this judicial activist has set dangerous precedent. Before I start, here are two clips from TheRightScoop.com. The first one is Rush Limbaugh’s opinion on this ruling, the second is a clip from Mark Levin’s broadcast last night, taking a call from David in Cleveland, Ohio. There is also a post up on Michelle Malkin’s website addressing this ruling for those who are interested.
By now we have all heard of “Judge” (and I use that term loosely) Vaughn Walker’s ruling, striking down Proposition 8 to make same-sex marriage legal in the state of California. The media reports about this ruling are disgraceful, especially one from the Canadian outlets which repeat the talking points of far-left commentators. Instead of discussing the merits of Walker’s ruling, these journalists are touting it as a civil rights victory equivalent to Brown v. Board of Education. The truth of the matter, which you won’t hear in the media, is that Walker is a gay activist judge who was hostile, to say the least, to the proponents of Proposition 8 and ruled on the basis of his own personal beliefs and against the will of the people of California.
To start with, who in their right mind would think San Francisco, the city which voted 75 percent against Proposition 8, would be a valid location for such a trial? As Edwin Meese III stated in his article for the New York Times in January, this is “quite a home-court advantage for same-sex marriage advocates”. Next, as I just stated, Vaughn Walker, the judge who made this ruling, is gay. When the trial started, many argued that his sexual orientation would not affect his decision. Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle published a column in February stating that since he wasn’t entirely open about his sexuality, and that he was “very professional” in his decisions, that Walker’s being gay wouldn’t have any impact on how he would rule. Such testimony ignored the fact that a month before this column was published, Walker tried to broadcast the trial proceeding on Youtube, a move that was blocked by the Supreme Court. This was a shameless attempt at self-promotion, hardly the act of a “professional”. As Michelle Malkin pointed out, this was an attempt to turn these proceeding into a show trial. From here, the case devolved into a public spectacle.
Returning to Meese’s article, Walker’s impartiality was replaced by blatant judicial activism. Instead of challenging this case through legislative history, scholarly articles and actual expert testimony, Walker himself led the charge to by allowing TV advertisements, press releases and campaign workers’ statements in as evidence of voter prejudice. He even demanded that the Proposition 8 campaign disclose private internal communications about messages that were considered for public use but never actually used, as well as copies of all internal records and e-mail messages relating to campaign strategy. If this was the evidentiary standard by which Walker was going to judge the case, why wasn’t this demanded of the opponents of Proposition 8? As I wrote previously, their campaign consisted of the worst kind of prejudice…
If that wasn’t enough, what about threatening to burn down the churches and hunt down those of faith who supported this ballot measure? Why wasn’t this addressed in these proceedings? Suffice to say, Walker had already decided how he would rule on this case before it even started.
So what is the reason Walker gives for his decision? It is nonsense. As Rush Limbaugh put it, the reason his decision is “long because it is preposterous”. Give it a read if you don’t believe me. He goes so far as to not only embrace every so-called expert provided by the plaintiffs, but dismisses contrary evidence on the grounds that it is discriminatory, as addressed by point 74 (page 98). Walker’s entire ruling relies on this kind of idiocy. He take a swing at the religious community in point 77 (page 103), stating that “religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationship are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians”. How is this relevant? All it does is demonstrate his anti-religious bias. In point 79 (page 107) of his decision, Walker outlines that the campaign for Proposition 8 “relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian”. This is further echoed by point 80 (page 110) that the campaign to pass Proposition 8 “relied on stereotypes to show that same-sex relationships are inferior to opposite-sex relationships”. Walker might as well have said that those who voted for Proposition 8 did so because of a deep seeded prejudice against the gay and lesbians community. If that is the case, how does he explain Elton John’s position on the matter? There isn’t even a pretense of impartiality here. The plaintiffs might as well have written this decision. To sum it up, as David Boies’ premise for this litigation was that traditional marriage is nothing but “the residue of centuries of figurative and literal gay bashing”. I would like to see Boies actually prove that offensive statement. Once again, if Walker wants us to believe that gays and lesbians were the ones discriminated against when Proposition 8 was voted on, I would like him to explain all those threats of violence lodged against the proposition’s supporters by these “victims”.
So what justification is there in the constitution for this idiocy? Walker’s decision relies heavily on Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Such a ruling ignores that, not only that the intention of the Fourteenth Amendment was to overrule the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, but all state had laws against sodomy, even opposite-sex sodomy, at the time of its adoption. If the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to apply in such a way, why did it overrule these state laws? These decisions violate the Tenth Amendment which states that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people. This is why Proposition 8 isn’t unconstitutional, despite what opponent of the proposition have stated, as the people of California exercised the rights guaranteed to them by the Tenth Amendment. Instead of respecting this right, Walker has usurped authority on the issue and made his own opinions state law. In short, as Rush Limbaugh stated, tyranny through judicial fiat.
As John Yoo of Ricochet.com wrote, this ruling “is a sweeping decision, not just on gay marriage, but for its elevation of the federal judges into arbiters of social norms and private morality.” There is a reason why such decisions have been left to the states as demonstrated not only by the Dred Scott Decision, but also by Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu v. United States. One judge or five justices should not have this kind of power, as demonstrated by these cases. What Walker has done in this instance is that he has substituted the will of majority of California for his own, believing that his decision is superior to the one reached by 52 percent of voters. This sets a very dangerous precedent for other judicial activists who wish to impose their own will through similar decisions. Return to Yoo’s article, he makes the point that this ruling raise questions on the future of other legislation built on “moral intuitions”.
…If gay marriage goes by the wayside because it is hard to measure a ban’s effects, what about similar laws. Will Judge Walker invalidate the ban on adultery next? How about bigamy? Why not allow group marriages? What about the age limitations on marriage or sex?
It might sound extreme, but this is the very nature of the precedent Walker has set with this decision. This ruling has needlessly set up a “slippery slope” situation.
What good are votes if they can be negated by judicial fiat? What good are state laws if they can be overruled by an activist sitting on the federal court? If anything, Vaughn Walker’s ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger should be seen as a warning that the judiciary is operating on the philosophy that “the means justifies the ends”, and that Constitutionally guaranteed rights can and will be overridden to further certain agendas. Disgraceful…
UPDATE: Here is a pretty good post by Scotty Starnes. He makes the point that it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Vaughn Walker, who is openly homosexual, would rule any other way. While I don’t believe that it is more than likely the Supreme Court will overturn this ruling, he does make some pretty good points on the state of the judicial system in America.
UPDATE: Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has an interesting piece up concerning the “incoherent” ruling in California, as well as his thoughts on the institution on marriage itself. While I don’t entirely agree, I do think it is a piece worth reading and I urge my modest readership to give it a look.
UPDATE: Hot Air’s Allahpundit is covering the ongoing story of Vaugh Walker’s ruling on Proposition 8 and has a post up about today’s announcement. Suffice to say, I would like to agree with what commenter tommyboy said considering how extreme this announcement was, declaring that the proponent of Proposition 8 have no standing to appeal. If Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy needed an excuse to overrule this decision, here it is.
Now, despite one’s feelings on this issue, I would quickly like to clarify something. While I have my own personal and religious beliefs about same-sex marriage, that doesn’t mean I don’t think it is the right of states to vote on this issue. What occurred in Canada, to me at least, is the perfect example of what not to do with such a sensitive issue. If and when such social change comes, it must come because the majority of society has decided to allow this change. What is so infuriating about Walker’s ruling is that he has taken it upon himself to abuse his position as a federal judge to force this change on a state which had said it wasn’t ready to accept same-sex marriage. The truth is that in California, it will eventually occur, especially considering the majority’s social/political beliefs. This may in fact be an eventuality for most states, but that doesn’t mean that an activist judge has the right to force this upon an unwilling state.
What is truly scary about Walker’s original ruling is that it provides precedent for any judge looking to forward an agenda. It is same-sex marriage today, but it could be something far worse tomorrow, and for those who can’t accept this fact, quickly remember that the government this year alone has violated the constitution quite a few times to force an agenda, most notably the violation of the commerce clause through the individual mandate in ObamaCare.
When the decision of voters can be overturned in such a way, the very foundations of the United States of America, individual and state’s rights, are at risk… Disturbing…
